Blah Blah

Exactly. The gyms and swimming pools would still be open whether people were using them or not. They don't cost more to run because more people are using them. And the range of classes, activities on offer is wide ranging, so most revenue streams won't be affected at all. I would imagine Saturday and Sunday evenings are very much off peak anyway and many of the people taking advantage of the offer wouldn't go if they had to pay - so it's not really lost revenue at all. I think the cost is negligable.

Those on low incomes would struggle to even find a few pounds a week to go swimming.

I had a look on the ordinance survey maps to and until around 1950 it seems it was a pathway to some land behind. Doesn't say for what use. So an added on garage makes far more sense than a coach house. I half wonder if that label was also to sell the property as something it never was, for effect. All of it is ridiculous though.

Good article.

By the end of a 25 year mortgage it would have cost almost 1.2 million to buy! Googled the address to see if it started life as a house and it seems it was originally a coach house. So 1.2 million for an old shed then?

It's an excellent idea that will enable people on low and no incomes to genuinely improve their fitness and health. The long term benefits of that will far outstrip any cost. Savings to potential treatments by the NHS alone are worth considering. Obesity and poor cardiovascular health opens up a person to a whole raft of medical conditions that are an expense not only to the NHS to treat, but also to local support services funded by the council. We don't do enough preventative healthcare in the UK. This is a positive step towards that.

Yes it's tfl... https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/elephant-and-castle The site has a face to contact....a sponsorship manager - says it all really.

Maybe the councillor could clarify that? Either way, to remove subways that ensured pedestrians didn't come into contact with traffic, and to remove the safe island crossings for cyclists, that meant they didn't have to (as they now do) navigate compacted vehicles and take a leap of faith to change lanes, are not decisions that can be defined as improving safety. Something does not make sense in the planning or design of this new layout. And sadly someone has now died. The comments under the article I posted are rather interesting, particularly with regards to the forthcoming redevelopment of the area.

Yes I read the comments and found them interesting too, especially the one that suggested the new layout was designed to attract investment over any kind of sensible traffic/pedestrian management. Even cyclists had an easier time before because they could use assigned pathways crossing the roundabout. Now they are forced to go with the rest of the traffic, trying to cross lanes to get to the right filter lane, amongst more densely packed vehicles. The fact still remains, that if pedestrians are forced to cross traffic, there will always be the risk of accidents. When pedestrians can avoid traffic altogether, there are no accidents. The same is true for cyclists. How the designer of this new layout thought either of those two groups of users would be safer is mystifying.

The bursery point though does shed a different light on the money given by the estate to those schools, which is why I wondered. Business rents, again not something I know anything about, have been pushed up everywhere no? Small businesses have disappeared from our high streets because of that reason. There has to be some element of greed by landlords there.

Dangerous driving can mean impatient driving trying to navigate a much reduced road layout. Still remains that crossings that don't bring pedestrians into any contact with traffic are safer - so why remove them?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elephant-and-castle-crash-air-ambulance-lands-at-roundabout-after-lorry-hits-elderly-woman-in-south-a3174026.html So much for safety improvements. No pedestrian ever got hit by a vehicle in an underground crossing.

This it what happens when you take away underground crossings. The works aren't even completed and already a needless death. Well done Southwark Planning.

Do the schools provide scholarships and bursaries for some students though? I don't know the answer to that but just wonder that it might wrong to describe all pupils as fee paying at those schools. Having said that, like everyone above, I don't undertand why fee paying schools aren't self sufficient financially.

If it's untaxed then that's different. It probably needs repairs to be moved.

I think no MOT is just a fine, not grounds for towing. But as someone has just posted that it is owned by someone living nearby, why not have a chat with them? This ploy to try and get their vehicle taken from them just because they are parked (legally) somewhere someone isn't happy with, is wrong.

But as a percentage of people who cycle it is a very low percentage.

But cyclists don't hurtle through red lights civilservant - that would just be asking for an accident. Most light hoppers stop or slow to see if the way is clear and then continue. So yes, if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain and there's no traffic, pedestrian or otherwise, there is no harm done in crossing a red light. You might not like it and it may not be legal, but to suggest anyone doing that is a hurtling cyclist with no awareness of what is happening ahead of him is bonkers.

No-one is saying it is ok. What I'm trying to point out is that if it's the middle of the night, cold and pouring with rain, a cyclist may feel it's ok to keep going if there is no traffic about. A driver would never need to feel like that. They have a warm and dry driving experience. I too dirac have got off a bicycle and crossed a pedestrian green light and got on my cycle again at the other side. It's perfectly legal to do that and at busy junctions may be the safer way to cross too, esp if wanting to turn right.

Yes, those men that just can't let go of their childhood BMX experience :D

That sounds very suspicious. A community warden (as they are properly called) would be on foot. They always work in pairs and as someone has pointed out wear a special red uniform with 'community warden' clearly written on it. But logic would say that only a Safer Neighbourhood Police team would do something like this, as part of an anti-burglary campaign perhaps.

If he's not very sociable or struggles to be so then finding something he's very interested in is probably the only way to motivate him to join something and stick with it. There are lots of activities like politics, the arts, free lectures, etc that he could look at doing. Someone suggested volunteering too. There are all kinds of charities that young people volunteer at. Crisis is a good charity for that, working with the homeless, amongst others. They btw have a volunteering information day this Saturday.

Exdulwicher makes some good points though. Cyling on pavement when there are no pedestrians around doesn't harm anyone. Similarly, cycling through a red light in the middle of the night when there is no traffic around doesn't harm anyone either. Both are technically wrong/ illegal but cyclists are also affected by things, like weather or congestion, which will affect their behaviour sometimes. Cycling on a pavement in a way that forces pedestrians to give way is a conscious act of danger but the vast majority of cyclists would never do this. This is also something I have never seen any cyclist do on Rye Lane either (apart from the shared cycle path at the north end). A cyclist on the road has every right to be there, cycling as fast as the speed limit and conditions allow, but then again, very few cyclists make anywhere near the speed limit. So this is why the OPs question has no merit. Cyclists over 16 can be fined for riding on a pavement, so legislation already exists for this. Just becuse it is impossible to fine everyone that does it isn't a reason for banning every cyclist, any more than banning all drivers because the few that drive badly are never caught, would be a reasonable idea either.

But the psychology is completely different. Children first learn to ride bikes on pavements, and continue to do so. Only after the age of 16 can a person be given a fine for riding on the pavement, by which time the lack of any feeling of illegality about pavements has long gone. No-one ever learns to drive a vehicle on pavements or going the wrong way on roads. So it's not hard to see the psychological difference in attitude.

It isn't a huge wiggle round to avoid the Choumert one way. Sand street is less than 20 metres away and is the correct way round. It adds maybe only 50 metres to the Journey max. Cyclists are just being lazy.